4 ms·
What Mighty is trying to do is make the web faster for people who really need it to be really fast, and offering people the opportunity to voluntarily pay a mod
by tomhoward 5y ago
What Mighty is trying to do is make the web faster for people who really need it to be really fast, and offering people the opportunity to voluntarily pay a modest monthly fee for that service. If there is a reasonable way of saying this should not be done, sure have at it. Or just let customers decide. Whatever you like.
I get that much of the rage is focused on the some variant of the complaint that the web is slow because of JS cruft or advertising or whatever. Fine, there's a place for a discussion about that. Mighty didn't create that problem. They're just offering a solution that problem for people who need the solution enough to be willing to pay for it. No need to wish for Mighty to "crash and burn" just for trying to offer one kind of remedy.
As I said, it doesn't matter what you do - the good founders will either read your criticism as helpful feedback and improve, or they'll recognise it as being from a "hater" and ignore it - perhaps being a little bit more spurred on to succeed. It's just up to you as to what kind of help you want to offer that founder.
As for your last sentence: in this discussion we're talking specifically about the kind of feedback that is levelled at the founders of nascent products/companies when they launch, when they're just trying to offer something new to people who might want to try it. But even aside from that, in my experience, people running companies aren't usually hoping their competitors "crash and burn" - people who think like that are ego-driven and don't make it very far. There's generally a sense of respectful rivalry between competitors in an industry, and usually one company hopes to succeed at the products they make, whilst other companies in the space focus on different products or market segments.
I guess it's all about whether your outlook is constructive or destructive.
Ultimately, if we're generally in agreement that it's not commendable to be a "hater", then all other discussion is fairly arbitrary.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y agoSigh, if your nascent product can't sustain some basic scrutiny, than maybe, just maybe, it is not quite ready to be released worldwide. Dismissing claims as 'hateful' is a ridiculously retarded approach that could not have been envisioned in 90s. Everyone is a victim of cyberbullying now -- including poor founders, who will now have PTSD and cry themselves to bed as their ideas are being tested in real world ( which is exactly what they asked for ! ). Maybe I just don't get it. Do I automatically get a right for praise for pitching VC on Twitter along the lines of: "Here is a concept of our 4 dimensional quasi-pan-crypto forced into illusion matrix via blockchain to take advantage of your unused memory to store valuable pieces of information. You get paid, when you hide other people's secrets."
- tomhoward 5y agoNone of this is what the essay is about. See these comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27007027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27007027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27007576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27007576
- geofft 5y agoYou're not engaging with any of the well-reasoned criticism in that comment. You in fact do not get what the clearly-stated objection (not "rage") is about - it has nothing to do with JS cruft or advertising. That makes me think that any further effort on my part to try to repeat those claims is futile, and you are being "obsessive and uncritical" as the article puts it. We agree that it is not commendable to be a hater, sure. I think it is also not commendable to be unable to distinguish critics from haters.
- tomhoward 5y agoFair enough, I conflated the other comments complaining about web bloat, with this one, complaining about centralisation and security. But isn't this just the problem when the actual substance of the comment is wrapped up in such a mean-spirited package. So, the point that I can discern, and that you seem to be endorsing, is that this product has security and centralisation risks, and therefore it shouldn't exist and that we should hope that the company "fails and fails hard" and that they "crash and burn", and that the founders's work - years of hard work by a fellow hacker/creator - amounts to nothing. OK, if that's the kind of critiquing that people think is beneficial and makes them feel good about themselves, good luck to them!